Gluteus Medius and Tensor Fascia Latae muscle activation levels during multi-joint strengthening exercises

Abstract

Aim:

To compare the activation of GMed and TFL in four multi-joint exercises in strength training protocols and to verify if the level of muscle activation is indicated for strength gains in resistance training protocols.

Methods:

Eleven recreational lifters had normalized muscle activation of GMed and TFL assessed during ten maximal repetitions of four multi-joint exercises: (1) bilateral supine bridge (BiBRG); (2) bilateral supine bridge with hip abducted (BiBRG-AB); (3) unilateral supine bridge (UniBRG) and (4) single-leg squat (SLS).

Results:

A load of exercises was significantly greater for the BiBRG and BiBRG-AB compared to the UniBRG and SLS (p<0.001). We observed that GMed activation was significant greater compared to TFL among the four exercises (p=0.004) [BiBRG: Δ=26.2%; BiBRG-AB: Δ=27.3%; UniBRG: Δ=24.5% and SLS: Δ=18.8%]. Additionally, GMed activation was classified as moderate (<40%iMVC) and TFL activation was classified as low (<20%iMVC) in all exercises.

Conclusion:

Our results demonstrated that GMed is more active than TFL in all analyzed exercises. However, the level of activation observed for GMed was below that recommended to strength gain in resistance training programs.

Keywords:
hip abductor; gluteus medius; EMG; resistance training; exercises

Introduction

Gluteal muscles present great importance for the stability and movement of the lower limb in space. For that, the gluteus medius (GMed) has been highlighted due to its role of stabilizing the hip, specifically the femoral head in the acetabular fossa¹ and the pelvis during gait, as well as to eccentrically control the action of the hip and therefore, helping to avoid excessive knee valgus during weight-bearing activities². Additionally, GMed also helps to perform hip abduction³. However, a previous study pointed the tensor fascia latae (TFL) as the main muscle of hip abduction¹. The conditions in which this behavior was evidenced was when the load increased during hip abduction, forcing the GMed increases its role of stabilizer while the TFL increases its role as the primary hip abductor⁴.

Gluteus medius weakness is present in some musculoskeletal disorders, such as patellofemoral pain syndrome^{2), (5}. These patients commonly present an increase in hip adduction and internal rotation during single-leg tasks, such the squat². In these case, how the GMed presents hip abductor and external rotator functions, could act to avoid the poor alignment³. Additional to the changes in hip kinematics, an increase in lateral displacement of patella also is observed ⁶, contributing to patellofemoral joint stress and pain⁷. One possible explanation for the increased lateral displacement of the patella may be due to a high tension applied into iliotibial tract⁸, once the superficial and intermediate layers of the iliotibial tract serve as the tendon for the TFL⁹. Therefore, given that GMed weakness is related to changes in hip kinematics and high tension in iliotibial tract increasing the lateral displacement of the patella, the training programs that aimed at strengthening hip abductors have been seeking to strengthen primarily GMed rather than TFL^{10)- (12}.

The choice of exercises in training programs can be made based on the number of joints involved in the movements. A recent systematic review demonstrated that people performing resistance training may not need to include single-joint exercises in their program to obtain equivalent results in terms of muscle activation and long-term adaptations such as hypertrophy and strength¹³, demonstrating that only multi-joint exercises are sufficient. However, when multi-joint exercises that focus on GMed were analyzed, great variability of activation was observed for the same exercise. In this perspective, previous studies used a classification according to the percentage of isometric maximum voluntary contraction (iMVC), being low (< 20% iMVC), moderate (20-40% iMVC), high (40-60% iMVC) and very high (>60% iMVC) ^{(14), (15}. Thus, low to moderate values were found for bilateral supine bridge¹⁶, moderate to high for unilateral supine bridge¹⁶ and low to very high for single-leg squat¹⁶. This variability makes it difficult to choose the exercise in rehabilitation or resistance training programs, since muscle activation above 40% of isometric maximum voluntary contraction (iMVC) are indicated for strength gains^{17), (18}. A possible reason for this great variability may be the type of load applied in different studies, ranging from body mass¹¹ to elastic resistance¹⁹ since the intensity of exercise changes the pattern of muscle activation²⁰. Although the use of maximal repetitions is the most common method for determining intensity in resistance training and broadly used in previous studies to determine muscular activation^{20), (21}, the literature lacks studies regarding the muscle activation that involves maximal repetitions in the most common multi-joint exercises focusing strengthening of GMed¹⁶.

Even though it is necessary to strengthen GMed to play its role as a stabilizer, it’s possible that healthy strength-trained individuals may present some degree of GMed weakness, as demonstrated in football players²². A previous study observed that strength-trained participants presented lumbar extensor disuse atrophy, even with several free-weight exercises providing stimulus to lumbar extensor muscles²³. Therefore, there is a need to verify if multi-joint exercises used in resistance training programs are cable of strengthening GMed. Due to the lack of evidence regarding the importance of strengthening GMed over TFL in training protocols, and considering the role played by TFL in anterior knee pain, together with the evidences that multi-joint exercises are enough to promote neuromuscular improvement, this study aimed a) to compare the activation of GMed and TFL in four multi-joint common exercises in resistance training protocols in recreational lifters; b) to classify the types of the exercises according to the level of activation, observing whether the level of activation reaches the recommended to promote strength gains in resistance training protocols.

Methods

Participants

The recruitment was conducted through disclosure in social media and at the surrounding area of the university campus. Eleven males, without history of lower limb injury and at least 3 months experience in strength training volunteered to participate in the study (age: 29.18 ± 4.51 years; body mass: 84.01 ± 14.48 kg; height: 1.74 ± 0.07 m; body fat: 16.34 ± 3.33%; strength training experience: 6.61 ± 4.91 years). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee in Human Research from the university (76759817.7.0000.5668) and all participants signed an informed consent form before taking part in the study.

Procedures

Data were collected in two sessions separated by a minimum of seven and a maximum of 10 days. During the first session, participants were familiarized with the methods and procedures of the study. Then, the ten-repetition maximum test (10RM) was performed to estimate the load for each exercise (bilateral supine bridge (BiBRG) - Figure 1A; bilateral supine bridge with hip abducted (BiBRG-AB) - Figure 1B; unilateral supine bridge (UniBRG) - Figure 1C and single-leg squat (SLS) - Figure 1D). Testing order was randomly defined and there was a five minutes rest between trials. In the second session, muscle activation during three isometric maximum voluntary contractions (iMVCs), separated by five minutes of rest, was collected using surface electromyography. Participants performed the four exercises (10RM load), while simultaneously recording GMed and TFL muscle activation. All EMG evaluations were performed in the preferred limb.

Figure 1
Multi-joint exercises analyzed. Bilateral supine bridge (BiBRG) (A), Bilateral supine bridge with hip abducted (BiBRG-AB) (B), Unilateral supine bridge (UniBRG) (C) and Single-leg Squat (SLS) (D)

Isometric maximum voluntary contraction (iMVC)

The iMVC was performed with the subject in a side-lying position and the hip of the preferred leg positioned at a 10º abduction angle²⁴ (Figure 3) applying maximum force against a rigid structure, while pelvis was kept in a neutral position. GMed and TFL activation signal were monitored during iMVC (Miotec - Biomedical Equipments, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil). Subjects were verbally motivated during the three trials of iMVC and there was a five minutes rest to postpone fatigue effects²⁰.

Figure 2
Isometric maximal voluntary contraction (iMVC) for hip abductors. Maximal test was performed with hip at 10º of abduction.

10RM tests

Participants performed a 10RM test to determine the load to be used in each exercise. All subjects warmed up with a low self-selected load. The load for the 10RM test was changed until subjects achieved task failure in the tenth repetition, and it was defined using a maximum of three trials and always using bars and free-weights. If a fourth trial was required, a new session was scheduled in order to avoid fatigue effects in load definition. A metronome was set at 60 beats/min to pace the execution of the exercises, being 2 beats for eccentric phase and 2 beats for concentric phase. During all exercises, the participants were oriented to perform eccentric and concentric phases at the maximum of the range of motion. A five-minute rest was enforced between each ten-repetition trial. The final loads obtained through the 10RM tests were used during exercise execution, with the same characteristics previously described, while muscle activations were recorded. The exercises order for performing the 10RM tests and to record muscle activation during exercises was randomized²⁰.

Muscle activation acquisition and signal processing

Surface electromyography was used to measure the activation of GMed and TFL during iMVCs and four multi-joint exercises. A four-channel electromyography system (Miotool 400, Miotec - Equipamentos Biomédicos, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil) was employed using a bipolar configuration, with sampling signals at 2KHz and 14 bits of resolution. Two electrodes with 15mm radius (Kendall Mini Medi-Trace 100 - Tyco Healthcare, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) and 20 mm of the distance between centers were attached to the skin on the muscle belly after careful shaving and cleaning of the area, with an abrasive cleaner and alcohol swabs, to reduce the skin impedance. Positioning for electrodes placement followed the recommendation from SENIAM. A reference electrode was placed over the skin of the tibia as a neutral site for the EMG signals.

EMG signals were analyzed in the data acquisition software (Miograph - Equipamentos Biomédicos, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil). A band-pass digital filter (5th order Butterworth with cut-off frequencies of 20-500Hz) was applied to the signals. Whole EMG signal during iMVC from each muscle was selected to compute the root mean square value (RMS). iMVCs that showed higher RMS of each muscle were used for normalization of the signals from the ten repetitions of each exercise.

The RMS of each muscle during the four exercises were computed for the second, fourth, sixth and eighth trials during the concentric and eccentric phases of motion²⁰. All exercises were recorded by a webcam connected to a computer during exercises, which was employed to define the start and the ending of each repetition and the concentric and eccentric phases of the exercise. Thus, RMS value obtained during the entire trial (which had 2 beats per phase, totaling² seconds per phase) was used to analysis. The average of the four RMS values (second, fourth, sixth and eighth trials) were computed for each muscle during each exercise and converted to percentages of the iMVC²⁰.

Statistical Analysis

The sample size was determined a priori using the data obtained of similar previous studies for the GMed and TFL muscle activation^{11), (25}. Based on the mean and standard deviation of SLS²⁵, BiBRG¹¹, and UniBRG¹¹, we calculate the effect size (Cohen’s d). Assuming the effect size obtained in each outcome (0.03, 0.37 and 0.37, respectively), α = 0.05 and β = 0.80 in a factorial ANOVA, a minimum of 10 participants were needed to observe significant differences between exercises. Sample size calculation was performed using the software G*Power 3.0.10.

Data normality was tested through the Shapiro-Wilk test. Data sphericity was tested by the Mauchly test and the Greenhouse-Geisser correction factor was used when the sphericity was violated. For the load during the four multi-joint exercises, a repeated-measures one-way ANOVA was performed. For RMS of GMed and TFL during each exercise, a factorial ANOVA (4 exercises vs 2 muscles) was performed. When an interaction between factors was found, a Bonferroni post-hoc analysis was performed. The effect size was calculated for each ANOVA (η²) and paired comparison [GMed vs TFL during each exercise] (d). Cohen’s d were interpreted based on the following classification (<0.2: trivial; >0.2: small; >0.50: moderate; >0.80: large) ⁽²⁶.

Also, GMed and TFL muscle activation among exercises were classified as low (< 20%iMVC), moderate (20-40%iMVC), high (40-60% iMVC) and very high (>60%iMVC) ^{(14), (15}. Results are presented in the text and figures as mean ± standard deviation. All statistical analysis was performed with a statistical package (SPSS 20.0 for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL. USA) and significance was defined as p<0.05.

Results

There were significant differences in the load for the 10RM tests among the four exercises (F_3,30=81.57; p<0.001). The load was significantly greater for the BiBRG and BiBRG-AB compared to the UniBRG and SLS (p<0.001). No differences were observed between BiBRG and BiBRG-AB (p=0.998) and between UniBRG and SLS (p=0.196) (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Load (Kg) during 10RM (mean±SD) of bilateral supine bridge (BiBRG), bilateral supine bridge with hip abducted (BiBRG-AB), unilateral supine bridge (UniBRG) and single-leg squat (SLS). a - different of BiBRG; b - different of BiBRG-AB

No exercises (F_3,30=1.09; p=0.365; η²=0.09) and exercise*muscle interaction (F_3,30=1.06; p=0.377; η²=0.09) were observed. However, there was a significant difference between muscle activation during exercises (F_3,30 = 13.66; p=0.004; η²=0.57). We observed that GMed activation was significant greater compared to TFL among the four exercises (p=0.004) [BiBRG: Δ=26.2%; BiBRG-AB: Δ=27.3%; UniBRG: Δ= 24.5% and SLS: Δ= 18.8%]. Moreover, a large effect size favors GMed was demonstrated for all multi-joint exercises (d>1.49). Furthermore, for all exercises, GMed activation was classified as moderate (<40% iMVC) and TFL activation was classified as low (<20% iMVC)^{14), (15} (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Muscle activation responses (mean±SD) during four multi-joint strengthening exercises. * different between GMed and TFL

Discussion

To our best knowledge, this is the first study to analyze the level of activation of GMed and TFL during multi-joint exercises using ten maximal repetitions, intensity commonly indicated in strength training for hypertrophy²⁷. The main results observed indicate that: (i) GMed was more active than TFL in all exercises; (ii) GMed and TFL had moderate and low activation levels, respectively, in all exercises. Thus, the activation values of GMed in the four exercises were below that indicated for strength gain^{17), (18}.

Single-leg squat (SLS) is a widely used exercise for measuring GMed impairment through kinematics², so its use in training protocols tends to overload and strengthen GMed due to its pelvic stabilization role. However, the level of activation presents high variability in previous studies (from 17 to 82% of the iMVC¹⁶). Although the SLS is similar to other squats, a greater stabilization is required to maintain vertical alignment, since the trunk needs more vertical alignment over the stance limb¹⁵. DiStefano, Blackburn, Marshall, Padua²⁸ reported greater GMed activity during a full single-leg squat (until the touch of the long finger of one hand on the ground). Thus, this larger excursion from the body’ center of mass toward the ground could explain the necessity for higher activity of the GMed to stabilize the pelvis. This requirement for pelvic stability in the frontal plane probably justifies the important contribution of GMed during this exercise²⁹. A previous study observed greater GMed activity in anterior knee pain patients during single-leg jump³⁰, which was explained as an attempt to stabilize the lower limb during dynamic tasks. However, a smaller GMed activation also was observed in anterior knee pain patients combined with higher hip adduction and internal rotation during single-leg squat². Our study did not measure frontal plane kinematics during SLS, which could help to explain our results due to a possible change in muscle activation behavior according to kinematic response. Still, poor lower limb alignment during single-leg-tasks^{2), (30} was also observed in this musculoskeletal disorder³¹. Additionally, changes in the lower limb alignment helped to explain the greater variability observed in GMed activation during SLS¹⁶.

Our results concerning the activation of GMed during SLS are similar to two previous studies^{24), (28}. The methods used (hip position for iMVC and cadence of the movement during the squats) were similar to ours, differing only in the presence of external load in our study. On the other hand, both previous studies observed high activation values of GMed (64% iMVC²⁸ and 82% iMVC²⁴). Even the study of Boren, Conrey, Le Coguic, Paprocki, Voight, Robinson²⁴ is similar to ours in what regards the iMVC position and the cadence during movement, a possible lack of motivation during the iMVC justifies finding the higher value reported by the study. Moreover, the study by DiStefano, Blackburn, Marshall, Padua²⁸, performed the iMVCs in a more shortened position of the hip abductors (25º of hip abduction), which may have caused a lower maximal activation³² and, them, the higher activation values during exercise. Additionally, there was no exact control for cadence of movement for the participants to perform squat slowly, which may also justify the different results, since the angular velocity presents a direct impact on the muscle activation level³³.

Regarding the different types of bridge, our study performed the unilateral supine bridge (UniBRG) and bilateral supine bridges (with hip in neutral position (BiBRG) and with hip abducted (BiBRG-AB). The variation of hip abduction was used based on a previous suggestion of coaches. However, we did not observe differences in muscle activation between all bridges variations. Regarding the BiBRG, our results (33%) were similar to those reported by Ekstrom, Donatelli, Carp³⁴ for the activation of GMed (28%), even if presenting differences in hip position for iMVC and in the cadence for the exercise. However, our values were higher than those found by Selkowitz, Beneck, Powers¹¹ (15%). One possible hypothesis is related to the load employed in our study, which leads to higher levels of muscle activation²⁰.

The UniBRG exercise in previous studies demonstrated higher GMed activation values than those reported in our study (35% vs 55%²⁴ and 47%³⁴). Although we did not observe a significant difference between the uni- and bilateral bridges, it is worth mentioning that the absolute load displaced in the BiBRG and BiBRG-AB was significantly higher than the UniBRG. Thus, one justification is the fact that unilateral exercises incorporate a greater need for pelvic stabilization, which increases the participation of GMed¹. Another aspect regards the knee flexion degree during bridge’s exercises. Lehecka et al. ⁽³⁵ observed changes in the pattern of gluteal activation in the unilateral bridge exercise with 135º of knee flexion compared to the same exercise performed at 90º of flexion. The authors explained these results by the lower hamstring activation observed in the position with 135º knee flexion compared to the 90º flexion position (23.49% vs 75.34%, respectively). Thus, this mechanical disadvantage of the hamstrings at 135º of flexion would allow greater activation of the gluteal musculature. Thus, as our study performed the movement at 90º of knee flexion and with maximum load, justifying the moderate activation observed for the GMed.

In all exercises investigated, TFL muscle activation was low in our study. TFL strengthening needed to be minimized¹¹, mainly in anterior knee pain patients, since TFL tendon composes iliotibial tract⁹ and their elevated tension causes a higher lateral displacement of patella⁸. One justification on low TFL activation is regarding the absence of hip flexion, abduction, and internal rotation movements during the four exercises, which are performed by this muscle³⁶. Han, Yi, You, Cynn, Lim, Son²⁵ observed a moderate activation of TFL (~30% iMVC) during SLS, differing from what was observed both in our (9.4%) and in Selkowitz, Beneck, Powers¹¹ (4.6%) studies. The main reasons for the moderate activation pointed out by the authors is the possible role of TFL in preventing pelvic drop²⁵, since the participants presented GMed weakness. Thus, TFL acts similar to the GMed function²⁹. However, this role of TFL needs to be considered with caution. Han, Yi, You, Cynn, Lim, Son²⁵ defined the presence of GMed weakness based on a subjective method. Additionally, a recent study demonstrated that patients with GMed atrophy (which is related to its weakness) did not demonstrate differences in TFL muscle structure when compared to healthy subjects³⁷, which contradicts the possibility of TFL to act similarly to the GMed in preventing a pelvic drop.

The presence of hip rotation seems to be a variable that modifies the pattern of activation of the hip abductors, leading us to keep the hip in a neutral position to the rotation. Lee, Cynn, Choi, Yoon, Jeong³⁸ observed an increase in GMed activation during side-lying hip abduction associated with internal rotation compared to the neutral position (60% vs 45%). The possible mechanism for these findings pointed out by the authors may be that the hip internally rotated causes an increase in GMed length, which can produce more muscle activity³⁸. In addition, when the side-lying hip abduction was performed with external hip rotation, the TFL presented greater activation compared with the neutral position. One reason brought up by the authors was the hip abduction with external rotation, although causing a mechanical disadvantage in the abductor function of TFL, potentiates its function as a hip flexor, increasing its muscle activity.

One of the characteristics of our study was the monitoring of the activation of GMed and TFL during multi-joint exercises using 10 maximal repetitions. Most of the studies investigating the activation of these muscles did not control exercise intensity, which may affect muscle activation. In addition, 10 maximal repetitions are indicated for strength gains in training protocols²⁷. Another important aspect is that our participants are trained in resistance training, which did not occur in previous studies^{11), (24), (34}. However, the training level does not appear to be a variable that affects muscle activation in exercises with low³⁹ and high external load⁴⁰. Therefore, although our results showed higher activation of GMed compared with TFL in all exercises, their levels of activation were moderate (<40% iMVC). Previous studies indicate that for strength gains, muscle activation during exercises should be greater than 40% iMVC^{17), (18}. Therefore, even that only multi-joint exercises in resistance training programs obtain equivalent results compared to single-joint exercises in long-term adaptations, such as hypertrophy and strength¹³, all multi-joint exercises used in our study (and stated in previous studies to strengthen GMed^{11), (16}) are actually unable to achieve the minimum activation expected to promote strength gains^{17), (18}. Thus, we believe that the inclusion of single-joints exercises is needed during resistance training programs to promote muscle strength gains in hip abductors, mainly in the GMed.

One important limitation of the present study was that the range of motion was not measured during the performance of each selected exercises, which can directly impact muscle activation⁴¹. Even so, the researches gave the participants the orientation to perform the eccentric phase at the maximum of the range of motion. Additionally, we used the RMS value during entire repetition (concentric and eccentric phases), similar to previous studies^{11), (20}. We believe that another method of analysis (such as the use of peak value) during each exercise could change the results. Another limitation concerns the non-monitoring of the gluteus minimus since it is also an important hip abductor³⁶. However, based on its origin and insertion, it does not appear that this muscle could present different responses to those observed for GMed. The monitoring of the gluteus maximus, which is a powerful hip extensor and external rotator with its superior fibers having an abductor function³ and the activation of this muscle, could present differences according to the load and the great needed to pelvic stability in unilateral exercises. Since all of our exercises involved hip extension and knee extension in the closed kinetic chain, beyond the gluteus maximus, the hip adductors and hamstrings also act to hip extension³, while quadriceps promotes knee extension. Thus, future studies should monitor these muscles once they may be useful to determine their contribution during exercises and modifications regarding the double and single-leg stance.

Finally, although several studies pointed out a minimum of 40% iMVC to strength gains^{17), (18), (42}, we failed to observe long-term studies confirming that. The theory behind this affirmation is based on the relationship between loads and muscle activation since loads of 40% of 1RM have been shown to increase strength⁴³. Therefore, 40% iMVC may provide sufficient stimulus for strength gains³⁴. However, during dynamic contractions, the relationship between load and activation is not linear⁴⁴. moreover, since the joint angle to perform iMVC changes the EMG amplitude (smaller in shortening position compared with more stretching) ⁽³² and is different between studies, a level of activation based on maximum contraction to recommend an exercise for strength gains needs caution. Future studies are necessary to confirm the relationship between the level of activation and strength gains through a long-term study involving resistance training, as well as perform the maximal contraction to normalize activation during exercise in a position that muscle produces a high level of force based on their force-length relationship.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrated that GMed is more active than TFL in all analyzed exercises using maximal repetitions. However, the level of activation observed during exercises used in our study was below the recommendation for strength gains. Thus, we believe that to strengthening GMed, may be necessary to include single-joint exercises in resistance training programs.

References

• ¹
  Gottschalk F, Kourosh S, Leveau B. The functional anatomy of tensor fasciae latae and gluteus medius and minimus. J Anat. 1989; 166: 179-89.
• ²
  Nakagawa TH, Moriya ETU, Maciel CD, Serrao FV. Trunk, Pelvis, Hip, and Knee Kinematics, Hip Strength, and Gluteal Muscle Activation During a Single-Leg Squat in Males and Females With and Without Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012; 42: 491-501.
• ³
  Neumann DA. Kinesiology of the hip: a focus on muscular actions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010; 40: 82-94.
• ⁴
  McBeth JM, Earl-Boehm JE, Cobb SC, Huddleston WE. Hip muscle activity during 3 side-lying hip-strengthening exercises in distance runners. J. Athl. Train. 2012; 47: 15-23.
• ⁵
  Bolgla LA, Malone TR, Umberger BR, Uhl TL. Comparison of hip and knee strength and neuromuscular activity in subjects with and without patellofemoral pain syndrome. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2011; 6: 285-96.
• ⁶
  Wilson NA, Press JM, Koh JL, Hendrix RW, Zhang LQ. In vivo noninvasive evaluation of abnormal patellar tracking during squatting in patients with patellofemoral pain. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009; 91: 558-66.
• ⁷
  Souza RB, Draper CE, Fredericson M, Powers CM. Femur rotation and patellofemoral joint kinematics: a weight-bearing magnetic resonance imaging analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 40: 277-85.
• ⁸
  Merican AM, Amis AA. Iliotibial band tension affects patellofemoral and tibiofemoral kinematics. J Biomech. 2009; 42: 1539-46.
• ⁹
  Putzer D, Haselbacher M, Hormann R, Klima G, Nogler M. The deep layer of the tractus iliotibialis and its relevance when using the direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: a cadaver study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2017; 137: 1755-60.
• ¹⁰
  Bishop BN, Greenstein J, Etnoyer-Slaski JL, Sterling H, Topp R. Electromyographic Analysis of Gluteus Maximus, Gluteus Medius, and Tensor Fascia Latae During Therapeutic Exercises With and Without Elastic Resistance. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2018; 13: 668-75.
• ¹¹
  Selkowitz DM, Beneck GJ, Powers CM. Which exercises target the gluteal muscles while minimizing activation of the tensor fascia lata? Electromyographic assessment using fine-wire electrodes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013; 43: 54-64.
• ¹²
  Sidorkewicz N, Cambridge ED, McGill SM. Examining the effects of altering hip orientation on gluteus medius and tensor fascae latae interplay during common non-weight-bearing hip rehabilitation exercises. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014; 29: 971-6.
• ¹³
  Gentil P, Fisher J, Steele J. A Review of the Acute Effects and Long-Term Adaptations of Single- and Multi-Joint Exercises during Resistance Training. Sports Med. 2017; 47: 843-55.
• ¹⁴
  Digiovine NM, Jobe FW, Pink M, Perry J. An electromyographic analysis of the upper extremity in pitching. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1992; 1: 15-25.
• ¹⁵
  Reiman MP, Bolgla LA, Loudon JK. A literature review of studies evaluating gluteus maximus and gluteus medius activation during rehabilitation exercises. Physiother Theory Pract. 2012; 28: 257-68.
• ¹⁶
  Ebert JR, Edwards PK, Fick DP, Janes GC. A Systematic Review of Rehabilitation Exercises to Progressively Load the Gluteus Medius. J Sport Rehabil. 2017; 26: 418-36.
• ¹⁷
  Andersen LL, Magnusson SP, Nielsen M, Haleem J, Poulsen K, Aagaard P. Neuromuscular activation in conventional therapeutic exercises and heavy resistance exercises: implications for rehabilitation. Physical Therapy. 2006; 86: 683-97.
• ¹⁸
  Escamilla RF, Lewis C, Bell D, Bramblet G, Daffron J, Lambert S, et al. Core muscle activation during Swiss ball and traditional abdominal exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010; 40: 265-76.
• ¹⁹
  Lubahn AJ, Kernozek TW, Tyson TL, Merkitch KW, Reutemann P, Chestnut JM. Hip muscle activation and knee frontal plane motion during weight bearing therapeutic exercises. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2011; 6: 92-103.
• ²⁰
  Franke Rde A, Botton CE, Rodrigues R, Pinto RS, Lima CS. Analysis of anterior, middle and posterior deltoid activation during single and multijoint exercises. J Sport Med Phys Fit. 2015; 55: 714-21.
• ²¹
  Enocson AG, Berg HE, Vargas R, Jenner G, Tesch PA. Signal intensity of MR-images of thigh muscles following acute open- and closed chain kinetic knee extensor exercise - index of muscle use. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2005; 94: 357-63.
• ²²
  Osborne HR, Quinlan JF, Allison GT. Hip abduction weakness in elite junior footballers is common but easy to correct quickly: a prospective sports team cohort based study. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol. 2012; 4: 37.
• ²³
  Pollock ML, Leggett SH, Graves JE, Jones A, Fulton M, Cirulli J. Effect of resistance training on lumbar extension strength. Am J Sports Med. 1989; 17: 624-9.
• ²⁴
  Boren K, Conrey C, Le Coguic J, Paprocki L, Voight M, Robinson TK. Electromyographic analysis of gluteus medius and gluteus maximus during rehabilitation exercises. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2011; 6: 206-23.
• ²⁵
  Han HR, Yi CH, You SH, Cynn HS, Lim OB, Son JI. Comparative Effects of 4 Single-Leg Squat Exercises in Subjects With Gluteus Medius Weakness. J Sport Rehabil. 2018: 1-7.
• ²⁶
  Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ), 1988.
• ²⁷
  ACSM. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2009; 41: 687-708.
• ²⁸
  DiStefano LJ, Blackburn JT, Marshall SW, Padua DA. Gluteal muscle activation during common therapeutic exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009; 39: 532-40.
• ²⁹
  McCurdy K, O'Kelley E, Kutz M, Langford G, Ernest J, Torres M. Comparison of lower extremity EMG between the 2-leg squat and modified single-leg squat in female athletes. J Sport Rehabil. 2010; 19: 57-70.
• ³⁰
  Bley AS, Correa JC, Dos Reis AC, Rabelo ND, Marchetti PH, Lucareli PR. Propulsion phase of the single leg triple hop test in women with patellofemoral pain syndrome: a biomechanical study. PloS One. 2014; 9: e97606.
• ³¹
  Nakagawa TH, Moriya ET, Maciel CD, Serrao AF. Frontal plane biomechanics in males and females with and without patellofemoral pain. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012; 44: 1747-55.
• ³²
  Lanza MB, Balshaw TG, Folland JP. Do changes in neuromuscular activation contribute to the knee extensor angle-torque relationship? Exp Physiol. 2017; 102: 962-73.
• ³³
  Fan JZ, Liu X, Ni GX. Angular velocity affects trunk muscle strength and EMG activation during isokinetic axial rotation. BioMed Res Int. 2014; 2014: 623191.
• ³⁴
  Ekstrom RA, Donatelli RA, Carp KC. Electromyographic analysis of core trunk, hip, and thigh muscles during 9 rehabilitation exercises. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007; 37: 754-62.
• ³⁵
  Lehecka BJ, Edwards M, Haverkamp R, Martin L, Porter K, Thach K, et al. Building a better gluteal bridge: electromyographic analysis of hip muscle activity during modified single-leg bridges. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2017; 12: 543-9.
• ³⁶
  Flack NA, Nicholson HD, Woodley SJ. A review of the anatomy of the hip abductor muscles, gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, and tensor fascia lata. Clin Anat (New York, NY). 2012; 25: 697-708.
• ³⁷
  Chi AS, Long SS, Zoga AC, Parker L, Morrison WB. Association of Gluteus Medius and Minimus Muscle Atrophy and Fall-Related Hip Fracture in Older Individuals Using Computed Tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2016; 40: 238-42.
• ³⁸
  Lee JH, Cynn HS, Choi SA, Yoon TL, Jeong HJ. Effects of different hip rotations on gluteus medius and tensor fasciae latae muscle activity during isometric side-lying hip abduction. J Sport Rehabil. 2013; 22: 301-7.
• ³⁹
  Gentil P, Bottaro M, Noll M, Werner S, Vasconcelos JC, Seffrin A, et al. Muscle activation during resistance training with no external load - effects of training status, movement velocity, dominance, and visual feedback. Physiol. Behav. 2017; 179: 148-52.
• ⁴⁰
  Daniels RJ, Cook SB. Effect of instructions on EMG during the bench press in trained and untrained males. Hum Mov Sci. 2017; 55: 182-8.
• ⁴¹
  da Silva JJ, Schoenfeld BJ, Marchetti PN, Pecoraro SL, Greve JMD, Marchetti PH. Muscle Activation Differs Between Partial and Full Back Squat Exercise With External Load Equated. J Strength Cond Res. 2017; 31: 1688-93.
• ⁴²
  Cools AM, Borms D, Cottens S, Himpe M, Meersdom S, Cagnie B. Rehabilitation Exercises for Athletes With Biceps Disorders and SLAP Lesions: A Continuum of Exercises With Increasing Loads on the Biceps. Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42: 1315-22.
• ⁴³
  Sousa AC, Marinho DA, Gil MH, Izquierdo M, Rodríguez-Rosell D, Neiva HP, et al. Concurrent Training Followed by Detraining: Does the Resistance Training Intensity Matter? J Strength Cond Res. 2018; 32: 632-42.
• ⁴⁴
  Sundstrup E, Jakobsen MD, Andersen CH, Zebis MK, Mortensen OS, Andersen LL. Muscle activation strategies during strength training with heavy loading vs. repetitions to failure. J Strength Cond Res. 2012; 26: 1897-903.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  24 Oct 2019
• Date of issue
  2019

History

• Received
  09 Apr 2019
• Accepted
  12 Aug 2019